Small World shows iPad capability for board games

Small World shows the promise of bare-bones, fully working board games at a …

The iPad remains a gaming device with a lot of unrealized potential. The large screen and touch controls allow for many gameplay options, including board games. We were sent a review code for Small World, and after checking it out, we're of the mind that the iPad can handle the genre quite well.

Small World is a French board game that sees different races spreading across a fantasy land, holding onto as much territory as possible without overextending their forces. It may seem a little tricky at first, and the in-game tutorial and instructions leave a little to be desired, but you'll pick up the rules in no time. If you need extra help, more information is easily found online; the physical copy of the board game has been written about extensively.

There are unfortunately some major holes here. There is no online play, and no AI opponent to hone your skills against. You'll need another human player to compete against, and you can sit across from your opponent or trade the iPad back and forth. While online play would have been nice, asking $5 for what amounts to a digital version of the board game is more than fair. The real thing would have been $30 or more.

There is no way to lose pieces, and you can easily play the game in a car or on a plane. I've been having a good time with it, and I hope more European-style board games make the jump over to the iPad. If there was a premium version released for $10 or more that included online play or computer-controlled opponents, it would be worth an upgrade.

One of my favorite iPad apps is Game Table, which simply offers digital versions of checkers, chess, reversi, and poker. For a dollar, that's quite the deal, and I've often challenged the kids to a game when we're bored in the car. Seeing more complicated board games make the jump to the iPad this inexpensively is a good thing, and we hope to see more of it in the future.

63 Reader Comments

"One of my favorite iPad apps is Game Table, which simply offers digital versions of checkers, chess, reversi, and poker. For a dollar, that's quite the deal, and I've often challenged the kids to a game when we're bored in the car."

I do hope that your not driving when you challenge the kids to these games. Based on the people I observe during my carpool to work, it would not be entirely surprising for this to happen. Although I wonder if as a Tablet, the iPad would fall afoul of the no cellphones while driving laws where I am.

I can see board games being a natural growth area for the iPad as well as other touch based devices and tablet PCs. Primarily because they are designed with certain acceptable rules in mind that are well handled by the limitations of the device. While certain genres are well done for touch devices currently in existence, I still have yet to see anything that proves that a touch device that does games as a side can do games better then a full time games device on any broad scope of the gaming industry with such a one-shot control scheme.

This is more as a reaction to Apple's attempts to "Me four!" the rest of the gaming market, but also as a question similar in relation to one other comment here. It was asked why there wasn't a risk game on the iPad. Well, when was the last time anyone was excited about a Risk release on a console from a game standpoint.

A roundabout way of saying while the iPad seems to be handling the board game genre fairly well, getting excited for something usually shuffled aside on other consoles in favor of better titles shows that the iPad is still an ineffective gaming device compared to the competition.

When I really want to show off the iPad's capacity for games to people, I pull out Plants v. Zombies and load the "Whack a Zombie" minigame. What was marginally a challenge on the PC becomes trivially easy because of multitouch; you just play the screen with all fingers like a piano.

When people start realizing how this changes gameplay and game challenges, I think we are going to see some really interesting games.

Board games without AI players (only human players) aren't exactly that hard to write The AIs are the difficult part (if you have good AIs).

Quote:

When I really want to show off the iPad's capacity for games to people, I pull out Plants v. Zombies and load the "Whack a Zombie" minigame.

Isn't that just a Flash type game knockoff? I have Angry Birds and it's kinda fun but it's just a Flash game knockoff, too. Similar to all those Fantastic Contraption and Tower Defense type games (just Flash game knockoffs).

While certain genres are well done for touch devices currently in existence,

I think they could do really well for the RTS market or another game where you spend most of your time issuing high level commands rather than controlling a single avatar. For the RTS market, multitouch offers your improved speed and multitasking beyond what you can do with a single mouse pointer.

Isn't that just a Flash type game knockoff? I have Angry Birds and it's kinda fun but it's just a Flash game knockoff, too. Similar to all those Fantastic Contraption and Tower Defense type games (just Flash game knockoffs).

The point is not the game itself. The point is that multitouch makes the interface so radically different that what was a challenge on PC is no longer a challenge on the iPad.

In all seriousness, I would love an Axis and Allies tablet game. I love playing the game, but setup takes so long. With how long games drag out, occasionally I've been forced to tear down a game without finishing it because I needed to use the table it was set up on.

Yeah, Walker has the right idea for Settlers. I don't think criticizing this board game for lacking an internet option is fair. It's just replacing having to pull a box out. Kind of like how most Wii games are for in person multiplayer only, not net based. It's part of the draw.

I really feel that Days of Wonder was intelligent in making SmallWorld for iPad a real-life game only. I own both the SmallWorld board game and the iPad version and I LOVE how I can show the iPad to anyone I know who has ever played SmallWorld and we can pick up a game instantly.

In my opinion, Days of Wonder pulled an Apple on this one: they decided it's not about the features you bring in, it's about the features you deliberately leave out.* They created a faithful representation of their stellar board game, right down to the need for another actual human being to play with. Yes, it would be fun to play online a la Words with Friends (SmallWorld with Friends?), but props to 'em for sticking to what they're best at.

*Yes, I know that Days of Wonder also made a number of online versions of their board games. It could be that they're just not done with the networking module of the game yet and we'll see online play soon. This is just my opinion.

SmallWorld is a friggin awesome game. This is the first time I've had an itch to get an iPad - I'll admit I didn't see any point in the form factor of the iPad before, but portable boardgames? Hell yes I'll sign up for that! And at reasonable prices too.

Puerto Rico would transfer well, I think. Agricola takes up my entire kitchen table, and it seems like it would be pretty cramped on the iPad. Not saying I wouldn't buy it, I totally would. But one of the beauties of the SmallWorld app is that everything you need is right there on the screen, with precious few menus or pull downs or what have you.

A roundabout way of saying while the iPad seems to be handling the board game genre fairly well, getting excited for something usually shuffled aside on other consoles in favor of better titles shows that the iPad is still an ineffective gaming device compared to the competition.

Only if you're a snob about games. If you enjoy a good board game with your kids or friends, this is a very good thing. Also, what competition are you lumping the iPad against here?

To be honest, i had no real interest in buying an ipad, but if i could play a variety of board games on it, along with it being an e-reader, then i might be tempted to buy one. But not until the second or third generation of the hardware, when it has that critical mass of features and after the price has dropped at least a hundred bucks.

In all seriousness, I would love an Axis and Allies tablet game. I love playing the game, but setup takes so long. With how long games drag out, occasionally I've been forced to tear down a game without finishing it because I needed to use the table it was set up on.

Small World works well because there is no hidden information. A game like Agricola would require either physical cards, or for the players to all have iPhones that represent their "hand." What I really want to see is Twilight Imperium ported to the Surface (or a really huge iPad, if that ever gets made). Or at least the map portion; I'm still down with using plastic pieces for the ships.

Only if you're a snob about games. If you enjoy a good board game with your kids or friends, this is a very good thing. Also, what competition are you lumping the iPad against here?

Quoted for truth. The reason that this market does not do well on other devices is because the games suck. And they suck because the interfaces on the platforms are not well suited to them (just like RTSs suck on consoles).

I had long salivated over Microsoft's Surface, because I knew it was a platform that would finally make this possible, but the price point was ridiculous. Now you have something that makes sense.

This is how Apple will succeed as a gaming platform if they have half a clue (which is not guaranteed). By capturing markets that exist but which other "gamers" (and that term that never used to apply to people who exclusively play digital games) ignore.

Or at least the map portion; I'm still down with using plastic pieces for the ships.

I have actually been looking at the intersection between traditional games and digital games for a while (though I have nothing publicly available to show for it). Testing suggests that players derive a clear psychological value from moving physical pieces. But that eliminates one of the key benefits of these types of devices: portability.

There are other benefits, however. For example, it might be nice to have a computer adjudicate complex rules (those this complicates the matter of house rules). Furthrer computers handle hidden information very well, particularly information hidden to the game (e.g. Clue). We toyed with using motion capture on pieces with a computer board, but nothing good came of it.

A better direction appears to provide ample feedback to the player on movement to compensate for the lack of a physical piece.

Isn't that just a Flash type game knockoff? I have Angry Birds and it's kinda fun but it's just a Flash game knockoff, too. Similar to all those Fantastic Contraption and Tower Defense type games (just Flash game knockoffs).

The point is not the game itself. The point is that multitouch makes the interface so radically different that what was a challenge on PC is no longer a challenge on the iPad.

Since the point isn't the game itself...but rather a particular quality of the screen...

When you say "radically different" might you also be referring to what the screen looks like after your Kentucky fried-chicken-eating children have had their greasy little paws running all over it for awhile? Serious question, as this is one of the things that occurred to me when I first read about the iPad.

It would appear that this obvious question has been all but universally ignored in every review of the product I've read. I would think that the screen, because of its very nature as a touch screen, would require constant cleaning--and I was wondering as to how and how often you clean yours.

Even with relatively clean hands (which I try and wash several times a day for several good reasons), I've noticed that on my off-white keyboard at work those keys get dirty fairly quickly (at home my keyboard is black and so I never notice it or think about it.) Transfer of material to the iPad screen would be as noticeable as on an off-white keyboard, if not more so, I'd imagine.

As well, most of the "games" described thus far really don't sound much like "games" to me in the classical sense of computer games. I mean, even back in the latter half of the 1980's when I was using using the Amiga platform exclusively (I still own a functioning A4000--and tons of Amiga floppy based game software that I would hope is still good..., the games I played *all* had an AI built in--otherwise they'd not have been "games" that were very much fun. Just from reading the short preview here, even though these are 2D games just like was true of the Amiga back in the 80's, they seem to lack a lot in terms of content and complexity, story, plot, etc. I realize these are $5 board games, but still you can buy Risk with an AI and other features, for your Windows box for $6.99:

Heh... These are all browser-based games, of course, and just Bing/Google "Risk Online" to bring up pages of them--far too many for me to have thoroughly examined, but there may be some free versions of the game with AI and more. I can't imagine this game without an AI--and I just played the gamehouse version for about 20 minutes (free) and have to say it was a lot of fun! I can't understand the premise of releasing games for the iPad with *no* AI--regardless of the cost, really. Last, question: do you have any idea why they might have left off an AI for these board games? Just seems darn peculiar. Anyway, thanks for your indulgence as I realize my perspective isn't quite the same...

A roundabout way of saying while the iPad seems to be handling the board game genre fairly well, getting excited for something usually shuffled aside on other consoles in favor of better titles shows that the iPad is still an ineffective gaming device compared to the competition.

Only if you're a snob about games. If you enjoy a good board game with your kids or friends, this is a very good thing. Also, what competition are you lumping the iPad against here?

I'm not being snobby about games (I own several very good board games myself such as Axis and Allies and love playing them) and it unfortunate that I came off that way. What I'm saying is that Apple has really started pushing itself as a gaming platform to be taken on the same level or better then Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft (A quick look at their gaming ads all over my local college campus shows that). I was pointing out that most of the time a board game is ported to any console or handheld experience it has a difficult time matching up with other titles as far as popularity and play go, simply because most gamers I know want something different and if they want a board game they'll play a board game rather then a console based version of Risk.

The iPad (and iPhone) may be a good breakout for casual games similar to the flash browser games we love to waste time with, but the touch screen alone is a severely doubled edged sword, and I have yet to see anyone do anything impressive enough to justify Apple's idea that the iPad/iPhone is better then a DS or a PSP for straight gaming. Those few releases that are ported from other places (Such as Plants VS Zombies) already thrive alive and well on their native environments and are enhanced only in small ways by the straight touch system. In return the straight touch only interface in many cases seems to detract from the overall experience. Street Fighter IV on the iPhone was a good example. Sure it worked, but the touch screen lacked actual buttons, and the game suffered for it. Most games that work themselves up to a level of input complexity beyond basics find themselves at a loss for fine control.

My point is not that the iPad is terrible at all games, but that it's natural design limits its abilities, effectively crippling the system as a viable full spectrum gaming platform. It works for the simpler input stuff but not for the larger stuff. If Sony was to release a PlayStation 4 that could only do 2D graphics and only downloadable PSN titles for the same price as a PS3 Slim, I doubt Ars, or anyone else for that matter would call it a viable gaming system let alone recommend it as such. Apple's iPad, despite being touted as a gaming system alongside the DS and PSP, is limited in that regard. Anything on the iPad could be put on one of the others, and the other two can do much more on the side in terms of gaming. Despite claims that the iPad is a viable alternative, at over 3 times the cost of a DS and more then twice the cost of a PSP, or even a 360 or a PS3lim, if someone is buying the iPad on the strict advertising and recommendation that it is a gaming machine, they've been had by the ads.

This isn't to say that it cannot play certain genre's of games very well. I have no doubt that tactical games, board games, and tower defense games (as well as variants therein) will do well on the iPad, especially as casual pick up and play games (10 minutes at most). Racing games, platformers and other games can succeed to a reasonable extent, but still find themselves at an impasse after a certain point. And certain genres, such as the FPS (non-rail) may never make a good showing at all.

My point is not that the iPad can't have certain types of games and do them well, but that if people are thinking to ditch your DS, PSP or other gaming system for an iPad you may want to think a little bit harder about it and check to see what games would hold your interest. My younger brother gave me his DS as a Christmas gift after he got his iPhone, thinking it would replace it. He would bounce between 5 minute play sessions pretty quick, now he's getting rid of it and going back to the computer for games.

I am not attempting to insinuate that Small World was a bad purchase, not at all. I'm making a broad statement about the ability of the iPad as a gaming "console" as a whole.

I don't agree. Hardware limitation can be overcome / taken advantage of by conscious design choices. However I do agree your point on the pricing. Moreover I'm unsure as to how many people would buy iPad with the sole reason for playing games on; attractive alternative that can do more than what other gaming machines can't? Yes. Full on replacement for gaming machines? May be not.

It would appear that this obvious question has been all but universally ignored in every review of the product I've read. I would think that the screen, because of its very nature as a touch screen, would require constant cleaning--and I was wondering as to how and how often you clean yours.

It depends on glare. In normal lighting with cleanish hands, it is never really much of a problem, provided that the color contrast on your game is sufficiently differentiated (this matters a lot - hence cartoony games do well). I only clean once a day.

As for the AI, as people have mentioned, good AI is hard. However, pass and play offers a play style that does not exist well on any but the portable platforms (and in their case, screen real estate is a major issue). So they build to their strength and release something to make some money. Perhaps if it sells well, they will make an upgrade with AI.

As for comparisons to the DS (comparing the iPad to the PSP is just silly - the interface is so radically different), I cannot stress how much real estate matters for multitouch. I was relaxing to a casual game of Mahjong the other day, and my wife sat down beside me. All of a sudden, she just started touching things with me. We were playing together and it was inobtrusive. It is hard to do that with a screen as small as the DS.

Yes, many of the games are ports, but that is what happens when a device is new. It is not like Steve was going to have exclusive game launch titles. Give it time. Either this will fly or it will not. What it will require is games that take advantage of its unique strengths. From what I have seen, the potential is clearly there. But a lot of things with potential have failed.